Comprehensive practice: Normative definition across 3 generations of alumni from a single family practice program, 1985 to 2012.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the range of services and procedures offered by family physicians who define themselves as comprehensive practitioners and compare responses across 3 generations of alumni of a single family practice program. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Western University in London, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: All graduates of the family medicine program between 1985 and 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported provision of the following types of care: in-office care, in-hospital care, intrapartum obstetrics, housecalls, palliative care, after-hours care, nursing home care, minor surgery, emergency department care, sport medicine, and walk-in care. Sex, training site (urban or rural), size of community of practice, practice model, and satisfaction with practice were also reported. RESULTS: < .001). CONCLUSION: varies across 3 generations of graduates of this family medicine program, with newer physicians reporting fewer overall services and procedures than older graduates. Greater understanding of the forces (institutional, regulatory, economic, and personal) that determine the meaning of comprehensive primary care is necessary if this foundational element of family medicine is to be preserved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".